*****GOP Presidential Debate 9PM EST***** (Ron Paul, famous, destroy, Huckabee)

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I would like for the OP to explain to me what exactly made these sharp or hard questions ?????

The hard questions I saw all fell on ideological lines, " why did you agree with a Democratic policy/support gay marriage/accept the Healthcare expansion" and so on.

Give us an example of what question you saw as hard or sharp. That is all I am asking.

The questions were sharp or hard from a conservative or Republican audience's perspective. The were not hard or sharp from a leftist's 'hey let's ask a bunch of gotcha questions about homosexual "marriage" lol,' that an intelligent conservative audience would be at once uninterested in from a political perspective, and simultaneously offended by, because of their intentional offensiveness.

A Republican or Democratic debate should, in my opinion, ask the candidates hard and relevant questions from the perspective of the respective party's base of likely voters in the primary. The questions asked should be questions that help really help these voters to get to see who these candidates are in the light of their own values and concerns, not in light of the partisans in the other party, as frequently occurs when Republican debates hosted by liberals.

As far as a question that was hard or sharp, let's just stick with the question that Kelly asked Trump
explain the comments you've made about women and does that show a presidential temperament? Here is the YouTube video of that exchange


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68

And then came his comments after the debate:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

Game over. Of course you can disagree, but is my sense that Donald Trump committed political hari-kari right there with those two answers. He is done.

And it is not because of "political correctness," as he tries to claim, it is because of his disrespectful, rude and hostile conduct towards women, which is misogynistic and ill-mannered in the extreme. As we saw during the Sarah Palin campaign for Vice President during 2008, and in numerous other incidents since then, Democrats and the left are quite supportive of this kind of conduct. But Republicans and conservatives are not, and they will not support Donald Trump any further.

This question was tough and relevant to the Republican/conservative audience. And Trump behaved like his asinine self, doubling down and showing himself to be the ass that he is.

Trump is done. Game over. Book it. And he did it to himself in response to a question asked about quotes from his own mouth.

Will CNN or MSNBC ask similarly hard questions of Hillary Clinton? There are certainly plenty to ask. Or do her obedient supporters prefer not to know?

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

The claim has been that the left hates him. I also thought the left was concerned about political correctness, but it seems it is the GOP who is more concerned about it. What happened? It highlights what I said before about hypocrisy. Whether it is intentional, or unintentional, Trump is exposing the hypocrisy, and making the GOP look like raving lefties when they run around crying about lack of political correctness. I agree he is not a credible candidate, but he is still leading the race, and a big part of his popularity is the fact that he is NOT politically correct.

The left likes that he is a Republican candidate and is clearly an embarrassment both to himself and the party. Political correctness is not a defense for being over-the-top insulting, ill-mannered and rude, even on the left, last I checked. Trump's statements were insulting ill-mannered, disrespectful and rude, to an extreme degree. Political correctness is a problem, but contrary to what Trump and his leftist defenders are now claiming, it was not a problem here.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

So Fox News asked the Republican field hard questions and demonstrated that they do not pull punches on the conservative side. This will have been unexpected by many on the left that in truth are not personally familiar with Fox or the way that they approach the news and the issues. It certainly is not what they were led to expect from the left leaning media.

I thought it was terrible that they started all of their first round questions with something negative about each candidate. They weren't "hard" questions. They were questions meant to showcase the moderators instead of the candidates. The debate isn't supposed to be about the moderators putting on a show. They're supposed to be invisible. They aren't Don King, either. And how unprofessional is it to have the moderators critique the debate in the "spin room" after the debate? I never thought I would say this in my lifetime but I'm hoping PBS is moderating a debate.

Now here's what CNN will do. CNN will ask questions about issues Democrats care about which is totally whacky for a Republican primary. Those should be saved for the General Election debates.

[Grsz11]

I guess Fox News wanted more than just a circle jerk where everybody talks about how bad immigrants and gays are. Kudos to them. And Megyn Kelly asked a perfectly legitimate question. Trump is a scumbag who would have no chance against Hillary for that very reason. They need to ask him the same question next time with Fiorina on the stage. Its not about PC. Its about not being a giant ****ing douchebag

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

It was a necessary question, not a tough one. Millions of people wanted to hear the answers. It was not a right, or wrong question, it was a simple question about them as persons.

I can't speak for the OP, but if he is partisan, it won't matter how tough the questions to Dems are, they will be called 'softball'. Its the way a partisan mind rolls.

I would also like to know what is considered a 'tough' question for Hillary.

A tough question in my mind to Hillary Clinton Would be to ask her how she can support her form of Immigration reform while there are still 2.5 million americans(enough to get to full employment) unemployed.

I'd want her to be asked what is her plan to lower the tax burden on lower and middle income Americans and can it be done without raising taxes on higher income americans

I would want her to be asked what plans the republicans have to she would use if they were better than the ones Democrats currently have.

I'd want to know under what circumstances did she think would ignite a war with Iran(seeing as my own personal whip count has the vote being 52/48 against)

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The questions were along the lines of "why arent you conservative enough".

I dont see that as a good line of questioning.

As for the answers, they were just as bad.

They asked Walker why should the people of this country elect him when he couldnt keep the promises he made to Wisconsin, and his answer was " The people of Wisconsin elected me 3 times".

You really think those types of answers are good ?????


I think I missed most of the questioned directed to Huckabee, so I cant speak on his answers.

No doubt you would have preferred to see Rachel Maddow and Candy Crowley asking the questions. Along the same lines, perhaps you would also like seeing a Democratic debate with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity asking the questions. No you say? What a surprise.

Expecting people who are never going to vote for any of these candidates to like their answers is of course a pointless exercise. But maybe the conservative audience was not altogether impressed with some of these candidates answers either. Is that a bad thing? Not if they were good questions.

Why waste everyone's time having this sort of a venue if the candidates are just going to be able to stand up there and recite their boilerplate talking points. That may be what the candidates would prefer, but that is not what the conservative audience wants, I can assure you. They want to see these candidates responsibly vetted by moderators who are not acting out some sort of partisan vendetta. And in that, the likely Republican voter appears to believe this was a very effective debate, considering the excessive number of candidates.

If this debate did not meet the standards of the left, then surely the left leaning venues (all but Fox) will ask even harder and sharper questions of the Democratic candidates than the Fox team did of the Republicans on Thursday.

Anyone truly believe that is going to happen? I sure don't.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

The questions were sharp or hard from a conservative or Republican audience's perspective. The were not hard or sharp from a leftist's 'hey let's ask a bunch of gotcha questions about homosexual "marriage" lol,' that an intelligent conservative audience would be at once uninterested in from a political perspective, and simultaneously offended by, because of their intentional offensiveness.

A Republican or Democratic debate should, in my opinion, ask the candidates hard and relevant questions from the perspective of the respective party's base of likely voters in the primary. The questions asked should be questions that help really help these voters to get to see who these candidates are in the light of their own values and concerns, not in light of the partisans in the other party, as frequently occurs when Republican debates hosted by liberals.

......



Will CNN or MSNBC ask similarly hard questions of Hillary Clinton? There are certainly plenty to ask. Or do her obedient supporters prefer not to know?

Since you arent a Liberal, how can you decide what is a tough question to a Democratic Primary voter ????

I mean, the bold contradicts your own closing sentence.

As far as a question that was hard or sharp, let's just stick with the question that Kelly asked Trump
explain the comments you've made about women and does that show a presidential temperament? Here is the YouTube video of that exchange


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68

And then came his comments after the debate:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

Game over. Of course you can disagree, but is my sense that Donald Trump committed political hari-kari right there with those two answers. He is done.

And it is not because of "political correctness," as he tries to claim, it is because of his disrespectful, rude and hostile conduct towards women, which is misogynistic and ill-mannered in the extreme. As we saw during the Sarah Palin campaign for Vice President during 2008, and in numerous other incidents since then, Democrats and the left are quite supportive of this kind of conduct. But Republicans and conservatives are not, and they will not support Donald Trump any further.

This question was tough and relevant to the Republican/conservative audience. And Trump behaved like his asinine self, doubling down and showing himself to be the ass that he is.

Trump is done. Game over. Book it. And he did it to himself in response to a question asked about quotes from his own mouth.

Let me be clear, Trump gave horrible answers and made the situation far worse than it should have been, that being said, he was targeted, that isnt even questionable. Maybe it was because he is the front runner,maybe it is because the establishment doesnt like him, we will never really know.

But Gary Johnson was just on CNN and he doesnt seem to agree with Trump on anything, but says the Republican Party pushed him out in the same way.

[Grsz11]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Since you arent a Liberal, how can you decide what is a tough question to a Democratic Primary voter ????

I mean, the bold contradicts your own closing sentence.






Let me be clear, Trump gave horrible answers and made the situation far worse than it should have been, that being said, he was targeted, that isnt even questionable. Maybe it was because he is the front runner,maybe it is because the establishment doesnt like him, we will never really know.

But Gary Johnson was just on CNN and he doesnt seem to agree with Trump on anything, but says the Republican Party pushed him out in the same way.

So there is no doubt Fox is trying to push out the fringe candidates and thin the herd to establishment candidates. Before long we will be down to Bush, Kasich, Rubio. The problem is, Romney was an establishment candidate.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

No doubt you would have preferred to see Rachel Maddow and Candy Crowley asking the questions. Along the same lines, perhaps you would also like seeing a Democratic debate with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity asking the questions. No you say? What a surprise.

Maddow is an unabashed Liberal, Crowley is not nor are many of the anchors at CNN, Crowley made the mistake of confirming a fact that republicans didnt like and that made her the devil in your eyes.

Expecting people who are never going to vote for any of these candidates to like their answers is of course a pointless exercise. But maybe the conservative audience was not altogether impressed with some of these candidates answers either. Is that a bad thing? Not if they were good questions.

I agree with this.

Why waste everyone's time having this sort of a venue if the candidates are just going to be able to stand up there and recite their boilerplate talking points. That may be what the candidates would prefer, but that is not what the conservative audience wants, I can assure you. They want to see these candidates responsibly vetted by moderators who are not acting out some sort of partisan vendetta. And in that, the likely Republican voter appears to believe this was a very effective debate, considering the excessive number of candidates.

Again, I agree

If this debate did not meet the standards of the left, then surely the left leaning venues (all but Fox) will ask even harder and sharper questions of their candidates than the Fox team did of the Republicans on Thursday.

Anyone truly believe that is going to happen? I sure don't.

But you said in your last post that tough was from an ideological perspective and that someone from the other side cant decided what tough is by that standard.

THere for, you cant judge what you believe to be tough to a left wing candidate.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I remember that one, And here is why I dont see that as a good answer( but decent question), he didnt actually answer the question.

What does the fact that the military isnt a social experiment have to do with whether or not a transgendered person should be able to serve. And how does someone who is transgendered serving in the military make it social experiment ?????

The argument has always been whether or not someone can perform when needed and he never said they didnt have the ability. He skirted around the actual question and gave a political answer.


That being said, you at least gave an example, which is much more than most people do in this forum when discussion things like this.

He did answer it. The question was not whether or not he would allow it, but how he would handle the suggestion. The answer is simple, the military is not a social experiment, where you test to see if this kind of thing would work. The military needs to stick to what has proven to work, as opposed to experimenting with something which is obviously going to be a distraction.